Supplementary Figure 2: Comparisons of context memory between groups are stable over time and invariant to the salience of the conditioning context.
From: Evaluation of ambiguous associations in the amygdala by learning the structure of the environment
(a) Minute-by-minute analysis of freezing during the context test for the groups in experiment 1 (and Pairings Last, included for illustration but not in the statistical analysis). A repeated measures ANOVA showed no Time*Contingency*Spacing interaction (n = 16,17,18,20,21,F1,288 = 1.96, P = 0.17). A comparison restricted to the massed condition (between CTL II and Pairings First) also showed no Time*Contingency interaction (F 1, 144) = 0.74, P =0.40). (b) Comparison of CTL II and Pairings First groups with conditioning and context test performed in a more salient context (lit by a visible light and with citrus odor). Reduction in Tone memory matched previous result (ratio between CTLII and Pairings First 0.63 vs. 0.66 originally), whereas Context memory was similar between the groups, as before. Error bars indicate s.e.m.
